The Hawthorne experiments and their relevance to organizations today.

What have we
learned about worker behaviors since the time these original experiments took place?

1. Introduction
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, a series of research was initiated by a manufacturing division
of AT&T called the Western Electric Company at its Hawthorne plant in Chicago (hence the
name Hawthorne), which was considered innovative at the time and still relevant till date
(Ballantyne, 2000). The reason for this lasting relevance till date cannot be a fluke, but rather
based on the value it contributes to understanding productivity and performance in businesses as
a nexus to human behavioural factors when the subject is aware that he or she is under
observation while working juxtaposed with when he or she is not under any form of observation.
The Hawthorne experiment has evolved into a theoretical lens and one of the oldest levels of
analysis of organizational behaviour at the socio-psychological level (Laegaard and Bindslev,
2006), contributing massively to what we now know regarding working behaviour since the
experiment and to date.
2. Hawthorne Experiment
Elton Mayo’s led the Hawthorne experiments with the objective of evaluating the effects of
working conditions on productivity. “When the lighting in the work area for few workers was
increased, it was observed that the productivity of the workers in that particular bay had also
increased”, thus establishing the fact that change improved productivity (Saha, 2018). However,
Mayo’s experiment has been evaluated differently by different researchers. Many people with a
conflicting point of view say that the increase in productivity level was because the employees
knew they were being observed and that they had to perform better.
Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne experiment continued for years and when the experimental changes
were reversed assuming productivity will drop again, it did not, thus establishing that “it wasn’t
the change in physical environment that increased productivity, but the belief of workers that
they were valued, taken care of and that someone was concerned about their workplace” (Saha,
2018). So the positive (Hawthorne) effects of monitoring lingered among the workers albeit
engaged mainly in simple tasks.
3. What have we learned about worker Behaviors since then?
First, we now understand that business organizations are social systems and not mere techno-
economic system. Second, the Hawthorne effect buttresses the fact the economic incentives are
not the only method to motivate workers towards increased productivity. Third, organization. For
an increase in productivity in workers, Management needs to encourage co-operative atmosphere
rather than relying on orders. Fourth, participation and two-way communication are essential for
organizational success and for human relations. Five, productivity is inextricably linked to
employee satisfaction. Six, group psychology is vital as a role in any business organization.
Thus, management must encourage informal group efforts. Last, in line with the neo-classical
theory, man is a living machine and therefore more important than the inanimate machine (MBA
knowledge Base, n.d), even as we find ourselves in the 4th industrial Revolution era (4IR).
4. Conclusion Theses
One of its legacies for today’s organizations is that the Hawthorne effect/experiments laid the
background for what we call employee engagement today because the workers were part of the
experiment and they felt special and recognized as important part of the organizations progress
deserving of attention (Saha, 2018). Afterall, engaged employees are the most productive ones.
But since employees are different depending on their levels and tasks performed, interpretation
of such monitoring experiments can differ. While some workers can consider the Hawthorne
effect as a sine qua non, others consider their monitoring as a form of micromanagement that
breeds fear, anxiety, and discomfort in the workplace. It is the duty of the Manager to know the
difference. To this end, it is important to take seriously the admonition from Bramel, Dana, and
Friend (1981) cautioning future and todays researchers to always have it at the back of their mind
that industrial experiments cannot be truly comprehended through simplistic “appeals to subject
expectancy effects, nor even to contextualized social work group relations”, rather, wider and
ever changing societal-historical context of management-union relations must be considered.

References
Ballantyne, P.F. (2000) Hawthorne Research. Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. London:
Fitzroy Dearborn
Bramel, D., & Friend, R. (1981). Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in
psychology. American Psychologist, 36(8), 867–878
Laegaard, J. & Bindslev, M. (2006). Organizational theory (1st ed.) Ventus Publishing &
Bookboon.com.
MBA knowledge Base (n.d) Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to
Management. Retrieved from https://www.mbaknol.com/management-principles/elton-mayos-
hawthorne-experiment-and-its-contributions-to-management/
Saha, P. (2018, January) The ‘Hawthorne Effect’ in the modern workplace. Available at
https://www.hrkatha.com/features/the-hawthorne-effect-in-the-modern-workplace/